기계번역, 저작권법에서 자유로운가?

Abstract

Translation is also for social contributions or public interests in that it allows people to enjoy information or culture in various fields. Translators increase the utilization of language and play a role as cultural propagators. Machine translation is much lower wavelength. The right to the translation, which is the result of translation, should be considered to belong to the user who used the machine translation service as a tool, not to the business operator that provides the machine translation service. However, machine translation is only a simple reproduction, not the creation of a secondary work called the right to translate. This is because the machine translation process has no room for the user's creative contribution to the translation, independent of the original work's creative performance. Therefore, since machine translation is only a conversion of language, not a secondary work creation act, machine translation in which permission is granted is a reproduction under the Copyright Act and violates the copyright holder's right to reproduce. However, users may be directly liable for infringement, but there is a high possibility that they will be exempted in accordance with the private replication regulations. Therefore, it is questionable whether it is reasonable to hold the online service provider (OSP) legally responsible even though the user is exempted as a regular offender. Therefore, I think it is reasonable to indemnify the translation service provider in consideration of the public interest of the translation service as to whether the copyright holder violates the right to reproduce. The problem is that the current OSP exemption regulations are difficult to apply to online service providers that provide machine translation. This is because it is questionable whether the translation service meets the type of OSP exemption regulations. Therefore, online service providers that provide machine translation are bound to be responsible for infringement, so it is necessary to review whether the translation service can be exempted in accordance with the fair use regulations. In conclusion, the conclusion made after reviewing the utility that users can obtain through translation compared to the transaction cost of obtaining permission from the right holder for the public interest provided by the translation service is highly likely to be exempted. However, for the social contribution of translation service providers and the legal stability of online service providers accordingly, I would like to propose a legislative proposal that includes a new type of OSP exemption in the form of general provisions. Separately, it is necessary to clarify the rights relationship of important machine translation such as universal services in the intelligent information society through in-depth research or policy review on machine translation such as translation quality. In the future, when a generative AI model, such as ChatGPT, directly translates as a policy task that may appear in the machine translation process, it is necessary to specifically discuss matters such as attribution of the rights of translation data(or translation memory).